Get the jumper cables, electrodes, bamboo shoots and water board ready

This debate over defining article three of the Geneva Convention gets sadder by the damn minute. The incredible lack of thought put into this issue by GWB is amazing. And I mean that sincerely. I know I've made more than a few derogatory comments on here about Shrubby, but the fact that he can be this naive about this topic is astounding to me.
Here's a link to his press conference today, in which GWB and a reporter go back and forth on the issue. Decide for yourself which argument makes more sense.

It truly is amazing that he doesn't realize what this will do on so many different levels.

First and foremost, it appears, just by talking about it like this, that the U.S. is looking for a loophole that will allow us to torture prisoners. And that brings in the whole "world is beginning to doubt us ..." thing.

Second, by defining it, you automatically lessen its effectiveness, because there's simply no way you can accurately or adequately define torture. You just can't. And as soon as you try, while you might eliminate a lot of techniques, you'll make a whole shitload of them perfectly legal -- for EVERY OTHER COUNTRY.

It truly is amazing that he doesn't realize what this will do on so many different levels.

First and foremost, it appears, just by talking about it like this, that the U.S. is looking for a loophole that will allow us to torture prisoners. And that brings in the whole "world is beginning to doubt us ..." thing.

Second, by defining it, you automatically lessen its effectiveness, because there's simply no way you can accurately or adequately define torture. You just can't. And as soon as you try, while you might eliminate a lot of techniques, you'll make a whole shitload of them perfectly legal -- for EVERY OTHER COUNTRY.

Click to expand...

Thank you. Beat me to it, Mini Taters

What this reckless and feckless occupant of the White House is doing is needlessly endangering every member of our military who -- God forbid -- should fall into the hands of these barbarians.

And spare me the these-creatures-are-getting-what-they-deserve/you're-coddling-the-terrorists crap. Try another argument; this one isn't happening here. What we're doing is a nifty combination: abandoning all the principles that have made us the greatest country on Earth and making it Game On for our enemies to torture our soldiers, sailors and airmen unlucky enough to fall into their hands.

Truly amazing. Just when you think this Administration can't descend any farther, the basement drops off and a new one appears.

This is a legitimate issue, but please don't trot out the BS line about how this could make the enemy harm our soldiers further. Jesus Christ, the terrorists don't play by the rules. Is there something worse than a beheading you're worried about?

Again, I do not think this is being handled right, and you can talk about the morality of this issue, but stop using terrorists as a basis of comparison. They have absolutely no moral standing; they simply couldn't care less, and that's where the crux of this lies for me. Traditional methods of warfare, detention and interrogation do not work against this enemy. At some point, if we truly want to win this conflict, we are going to have to realize that we can't play the same geopolitical game that has defined conflicts between sovereign nations for so many decades.

Maybe what Bush wants isn't exactly the way to go, but sticking to the Geneva Convention against this enemy won't get us anywhere. We have to be willing to adapt to the fight we're in, and I think, ultimately, people are going to realize that, Democrat or Republican, some tough choices on how we deal with the bad guys are going to have to be made.

This is a legitimate issue, but please don't trot out the BS line about how this could make the enemy harm our soldiers further. Jesus Christ, the terrorists don't play by the rules. Is there something worse than a beheading you're worried about?

Again, I do not think this is being handled right, and you can talk about the morality of this issue, but stop using terrorists as a basis of comparison. They have absolutely no moral standing; they simply couldn't care less, and that's where the crux of this lies for me. Traditional methods of warfare, detention and interrogation do not work against this enemy. At some point, if we truly want to win this conflict, we are going to have to realize that we can't play the same geopolitical game that has defined conflicts between sovereign nations for so many decades.

Maybe what Bush wants isn't exactly the way to go, but sticking to the Geneva Convention against this enemy won't get us anywhere. We have to be willing to adapt to the fight we're in, and I think, ultimately, people are going to realize that, Democrat or Republican, some tough choices on how we deal with the bad guys are going to have to be made.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, pallister, but if you don't want to be nice to the terrorists, you have no place in this country. Just ask dog.

With the right-wingers, there always seems to be a "but" with this torture issue.
"Of course torture is wrong but..."
I'll say it again. No buts. It's wrong. No matter what the bad guys have done, want to do, thought about doing, know, know people who know, it's still wrong.
If we're supposed to be the good guys, we have to act like the good guys.
And torture doesn't work. I was born in 1966. Torture me enough and I'll confess to shooting JFK if that's what you want to hear.
Some people just watch 24 a little too much.

This is a legitimate issue, but please don't trot out the BS line about how this could make the enemy harm our soldiers further. Jesus Christ, the terrorists don't play by the rules. Is there something worse than a beheading you're worried about?

Again, I do not think this is being handled right, and you can talk about the morality of this issue, but stop using terrorists as a basis of comparison. They have absolutely no moral standing; they simply couldn't care less, and that's where the crux of this lies for me. Traditional methods of warfare, detention and interrogation do not work against this enemy. At some point, if we truly want to win this conflict, we are going to have to realize that we can't play the same geopolitical game that has defined conflicts between sovereign nations for so many decades.

Maybe what Bush wants isn't exactly the way to go, but sticking to the Geneva Convention against this enemy won't get us anywhere. We have to be willing to adapt to the fight we're in, and I think, ultimately, people are going to realize that, Democrat or Republican, some tough choices on how we deal with the bad guys are going to have to be made.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, pallister, but if you don't want to be nice to the terrorists, you have no place in this country. Just ask dog.

Click to expand...

Smallpotatoes said:

With the right-wingers, there always seems to be a "but" with this torture issue.
"Of course torture is wrong but..."
I'll say it again. No buts. It's wrong. No matter what the bad guys have done, want to do, thought about doing, know, know people who know, it's still wrong.
If we're supposed to be the good guys, we have to act like the good guys.
And torture doesn't work. I was born in 1966. Torture me enough and I'll confess to shooting JFK if that's what you want to hear.
Some people just watch 24 a little too much.

Click to expand...

Hey, when you fight with both hands tied behind your back, it makes things a lot more interesting.

Saying that terrorists receive all of the rights conveyed by the Geneva Convention without actually obeying any of its rules, makes the Convention merely another tool for the terrorists to use in their efforts to overthrow the principles behind them. The argument that the Geneva Convention should apply to all diminishes the benefits of actually signing it.